hi peter, i think you are right. i will file an issue in jsr-283 to make sure that we don't forget to fix this.
i think it would basically boil down to something like: --- The node N and its connected subtree become read-only, with the exception of properties and child-nodes that are set to OPV=VERSION or OPV=IGNORE. --- is that correct? regards, david On 6/2/05, Peter Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Not really, i read this section of the spec and it does not really do what I would like it to do. I would like properties that have OnParentVersionAction.IGNORE set on them to be read-write within my workspace regardless of the check-in status. Peter. > -----Original Message----- > From: Angela Schreiber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 02 June 2005 13:45 > To: jackrabbit-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Modifying checking in properties. > > > hi > > you cannot set a property of a checked-in node. > see jsr170 specification section 8.2.5 Check In: > > "The node N and its connected non-versionable subtree become read-only. > [...] > Read-only status means that an item cannot be altered by the client > using standard API methods (addNode, setProperty, etc.). The only > exceptions to this rule are the restore , Node.merge and Node.update > operations; [...]". > > and section 8.2.6 Check Out: > > "In order to alter a versionable node (and its non-versionable subtree) > the node must be checked-out." > > is that, what you were looking for? > kind regards > > Peter Morton wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I would like to set the value of a property of a node that is > checked-in, > > without having to check the node out. (ie so that it is only > exists in the > > workspace and not under version control) > > > > I have set the property OnParentVersionAction.IGNORE for > onParentVersion. > > but the code fails due to the following check: > > > > // verify that parent node is checked-out > > if (!parent.internalIsCheckedOut()) { > > throw new VersionException("cannot set the value of > a property > > of a checked-in node " > > + safeGetJCRPath()); > > } > > > > Should I be doing this a different way? > > > > Peter. > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________ > ______________ > > This email (and any attachments) is private and confidential, > and is intended > > solely for the addressee. If you have received this > communication in error > > please remove it and inform us via telephone or email. > > > > Although we take all possible steps to ensure mail and > attachments are free > > from malicious content, malware and viruses, we cannot accept > any responsibility > > whatsoever for any changes to content outwith our administrative bounds. > > > > The views represented within this mail are solely the view of the > > author and do not reflect the views of Graham Technology as a whole. > > > __________________________________________________________________ > ______________ > > > > Graham Technology plc http://www.gtnet.com > > > __________________________________________________________________ > ______________ > > ________________________________________________________________________________ This email (and any attachments) is private and confidential, and is intended solely for the addressee. If you have received this communication in error please remove it and inform us via telephone or email. Although we take all possible steps to ensure mail and attachments are free from malicious content, malware and viruses, we cannot accept any responsibility whatsoever for any changes to content outwith our administrative bounds. The views represented within this mail are solely the view of the author and do not reflect the views of Graham Technology as a whole. ________________________________________________________________________________ Graham Technology plc http://www.gtnet.com ________________________________________________________________________________
